[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
[equinox-dev] FW: WSDM and SCA Management - was SCA Spec Update and Recursive Core presentation


I noticed that work was being done on a JMX implementation in the equinox incubator.  The Corona Project interested in a management interface for 
bundles, plugins, services.  We discovered that the Apache Tuscany Project 
an implementation of the Service Component Architecture (SCA) 
Specification is in the process of defining their management interface. 
Equinox and Tuscany seem to have very similar things to manage such as 
services, bundles/components/runtimes. We would like to invite the people 
working on the Equinox JMX implementation to share their expertise on a 
conference call on 6/30/2006.  We have Apache Muse WSDM designers and 
Tuscany SCA designers planning to attend the call.  I think a common 
management model for services/bundles/components would be a great benefit 
to JMX and WSDM.
Please let me know if you can attend and I’ll send the agenda.  Here are 
the details:

Apache Muse Conference Call regarding WSDM/JMX Management of SCA and Equinox
Date: 6/30/2006
Time: 11:00 EDT (-4 GMT) summer time
Phone: 1-866-711-3137
Passcode: 1667643
Here is a link to the original meeting invitation from the Apache Muse Project if people want to come to future calls:


Best Regards,

Glenn Everitt
Corona Project

-----Original Message-----
From: Liu, Jervis [mailto:jliu@xxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 2:00 PM
To: Hawkins, Joel; tuscany-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: WSDM and SCA Management - was SCA Spec Update and Recursive Core presentation

Hi Joel,
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe there is nothing about management has been published by SCA spec group. At this time, it is hard to define what exactlly "SCA knowledge" is. JBI defines five Management Beans, to do the tasks like deployment, component lifecycle management, component installation/uninstallation etc. I think we can safely presume that SCA management will need to do sth similar as well. As long as those functionalities have been implemented by runtime and captured by CommonManagement model, it should be relatively straightforward to expose those managment capbilities from CommonManagement model to different protocols (snmp, jmx, WSDM) and different management models(SCA, JBI or WSDM). For example, lets presume that SCA management spec is published and it is similar to JBI, I would imagine the CommonManagement model will be very much as the JMXManagedComponentManager model, except CommonManagement model is not directly depending on JMX (i.e., not using MBe
 anServer as registry and Mbean as metadata entities).  However, it is very likely that the mapping between CommonManagement model and "WSDMManagedComponentManageer model" is not a direct one to one mapping. 
To support WSDM, we need to figure out what kind of Tuscany management interfaces are required by WSDM. On the other hand, we also need to know when the SCA management is going to be published by spec group and what it looks like. I will also post this thread to Tuscany mailing list so someone may want to comment on Tuscany side.
Jervis Liu 
	-----Original Message----- 
	From: Hawkins, Joel [mailto:Joel.Hawkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
	Sent: 6/17/2006 (星期六) 12:23 上午 
	To: Liu, Jervis 
	Cc: weitzelm@xxxxxxxxxx 
	Subject: RE: WSDM and SCA Management - was SCA Spec Update and Recursive Core presentation
	No worries. Yes, minutes are posted, but we decided to talk about SCA week after next (6/30) since you weren’t there and I’m on vacation next week. The good news there is that Mark Weitzel can sit in on the call - he know much more about WSDM that I do, so we can probably have a much more detailed conversation.
	I looked at the link you sent (to the Celtix design), and it looked pretty straightforward. My one question/concern would be how much SCA knowledge is contained in the JMXManagedComponentManager vs. the CommonManagement model. The diagram seems to imply that the SCA Management facility is constructed out of parts from the Common model, but isn’t present in the Common model. If that’s the case, then we should probably discuss how to commonize that, as I’m sure a WSDM implementation would require those same interfaces.
	Look forward to talking to you in a couple of weeks!
The contents of this e-mail are intended for the named addressee only. It contains information that may be confidential. Unless you are the named addressee or an authorized designee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify us immediately and then destroy it.